Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

He just hates Obama.
Jobs for Everyone!

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Would that have been an accurate adjustment? Wouldn't you take seasonal adjustments and alter those for the economic climate?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Would that have been an accurate adjustment? Wouldn't you take seasonal adjustments and alter those for the economic climate?

given that the last 3 years weren't radically different to this year I don't think so.

If we had a gradual increase to this number it would make sense, but its a rather high jump.

The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

 sourclams wrote:
The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

Certainly does seem odd.

This link discusses the different unemployment rates and not just the sexy "U3" rate. The "U6"(need work, working age, not looking, part time only) rate is scary and above 14%.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Stay informed.

I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

Fair enough.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

Magic and happiness?

 sourclams wrote:
Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Interesting. Got a link?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

I think that's a fair summary, it is a little odd.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats the weakest standard. 1% deviation is more prudent for anything worthwhile.

Confidence intervals are just the result of statistical tests for significance, not for accuracy. If the BLS reported according to a CI of 99% the only possible difference would be that it found the change in unemployment to be insignificant (essentially, anomalous) with respect to previously reported data, accepting a margin of error in the sample of .5%.

The conclusion would therefore be that the BLS can't be 99% certain as to the current rate of unemployment, just as the present conclusion is that the BLS is 95% certain as to current rate of unemployment. That isn't to the say the data is inaccurate however, just that it may or may not be representative.

It would have a higher confidence at the 1% standard. Whats awesome is how I've totally forgotten what we were discussing. . .
So I'll change the subject. Am I the only one who loved statistics classes? Regression analysis was fun, but as a self taught calculus guy, always a bit twitchy.

I do not do math. (Period)

It's not true strictly speaking but beyond what I need for my job of hobbies I avoid.the evil numbers. Anything past trig is gibberish.

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who loved statistics classes? Regression analysis was fun, but as a self taught calculus guy, always a bit twitchy.

I was never a big fan of statistics class, but I do love actually working with statistics. Similarly, I was never a big fan of math class, but actually love math. I won't say I didn't learn anything in those courses, but I probably learned more doing my own research in order to understand some of the math and stats journals I was reading.

I remember my amazement that a floppy disk held an entire program that could do statistical runs. It seemed like a combination of rocket science and magic.

I liked statistics too. Especially as it applied to rolling dice

 AustonT wrote:
I do not do math. (Period)

It's not true strictly speaking but beyond what I need for my job of hobbies I avoid.the evil numbers. Anything past trig is gibberish.

This, I did weight and balances for my aircraft. That kind of thing. All else is the work of the devil.

Well, at least some people are doing good in this economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/investing/wall-street-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

This is a great book about stats.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1593271891/?tag=hydra0b-21&hvadid=9556677789&ref=asc_df_1593271891

It covers all the basics in a fun and readable way.

If you want to go farther, a book on Quantitative Methods for Business would be a good introduction to the kinds of stats we are talking about here. It should also cover a good chunk of practical probability.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, at least some people are doing good in this economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/investing/wall-street-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

They do good in ANY economy